The Left is outraged that the Vietnam era protest have not started yet. I guess Liberals and the democrats are the only ones that still do not believe that the Islamists have declared war against the US.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex A. Vardamis
Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Coffins, draped with the American flag, make the long flight from Baghdad to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Amputees fill the wards at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Meanwhile, jingoistic voices dominate the airwaves. Anyone with the temerity to question the Iraq war is accused of giving comfort to the enemy and undermining troop morale. In the midst of the carnage and bombast, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that tours of duty in Iraq, yet again, will be extended. The soldiers and their families salute and obey.

Where's the outrage? Why do only a few wives and parents raise a whisper of protest when the nation breaks its promises to the troops? Why are Americans reconciled to losses? Why is Congress compliant? Where are the protesters who filled the streets of America during the war in Vietnam? What has changed? Why aren't Baby Boomers and their children bringing the government to a halt?

The draft. That's what's different. In the days of conscription, most Americans were directly affected by our wars. A tour in the military included, like as not, a year in a war zone. College students could avoid the draft for awhile, but inevitably, Selective Service tracked them down. Some fled to Sweden or Canada. Others found refuge in the Texas National Guard or the University of Arkansas ROTC. The less fortunate, when called, were trapped in a deadly quagmire. Men of draft age, and their families and friends, raised holy hell. They brought that generation's "war of choice" to an end. The will of the people prevailed. Had citizens been silent, the Memorial Wall might now encircle the nation's Capitol.

Today, however, our soldiers are volunteers. They are as obedient as children. They voice no gripe with their commander in chief who sends them on his crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they do complain, they are sternly reminded that they had a choice. They were not drafted. They should have realized when they enlisted that they might be killed to enforce the Pax Americana across the globe. They are professional soldiers, aren't they? Hardly -- note how many of our dead are teenagers, scarcely out of high school. Many of them joined up for practical reasons: to find employment, to earn money for college tuition and, even, to win a chance at American citizenship. But at what price? Are the benefits worth a leg or an arm or a life?

In privileged circles, service in the military is a job for the "other" Americans. The architects of this war, led by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have none of their children in uniform. The possibility doesn't even cross their minds. Their daughters will never wear combat boots. The "war party" elite of America can afford to hang tough. They shift the military about like little pawns in a game of chess. Their sons and daughters will not be buried in Arlington National Cemetery or lie limbless in Walter Reed.

The disparity between the elite and the people is simply un-American. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized the inherent danger in states with professional armies obedient to no one but the princes who paid the salaries. The Founding Fathers understood that military service -- the right and responsibility of every citizen of a free nation to bear arms in defense of the country -- is the surest safeguard of democracy. If power is truly to reside with the people, then a citizen Army, a conscript military, is essential. If rulers are not personally involved, if the lives of their own family and friends are not at risk, they are apt to be careless in spilling blood.

If "taking out" an enemy pre-emptively has become, for the United States, a first and not a last resort, perhaps the best corrective is a draft. A citizen Army would make America less belligerent. Equitable and universal national conscription would provide the United States with a dependable military in time of genuine national emergency. The benefits to our young people would outweigh the sacrifices if active duty becomes, without exception, a rite of passage, entered into immediately after high school by every American, rich and poor, brilliant and average, straight and gay, male and female. After tough basic training and a year of active duty, America's youth would approach the university, technical college or workplace with new skills and with mature social and political consciousness.

National conscription would bind the nation. Young men and women from Sausalito to Salinas, the favored of Carmel to the disadvantaged of East Palo Alto, would have a shared experience and a common understanding of the duties and privileges of citizenship.

But perhaps, more important, these young people would serve as hostages for peace. The president would be less apt to deploy a national force if the "boots on the ground" were worn by Jenna and Barbara Bush.

Alex A. Vardamis is a retired professor of American literature from West Point and the University of Vermont who lives in Carmel.

FishForLunch

04-27-2004, 03:59 PM

Here are more quotes from liberal Democrat crazies, they really do hate the US
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am and always have been patriotic. I love my country very much, and I am therefore saddened by the lack of intelligence and understanding in the remarks posted on this page. I am embarrassed to be an American these days, because the majority of America, it seems, is full of ignorance and blind hatred and racism–things we fought against in WWII, but now, the similarities are apparent: The American people have been filled with hatred and resentment towards Arabs and Muslims, just as Germans despised Jews and other
“undesired” peoples 50-some years ago.
I am not anti-war, but that does not make me a trigger-happy racist, either. I am going into the US Army soon, a dream of mine since childhood…I love my country and I want to fight for change. If this country does not change soon, it will collapse as the USSR did. I do not hate Arabs or Muslims–I have Arab/Muslim friends and I wouldn’t trade them for anything. The racist attitudes presented on this page disgust me, and if you are joining the US military to kill
“rag-heads", then I hope we meet up on the battlefield someday, so I can shoot you and rid the world of another racist bastard. I’ll do it with an Ak-47, so if the Army even suspects me of foul play, the 7.62x39 rounds in your corpse won’t match the 5.56mm NATO rounds in my M4A1, and the findings of the Board of Inquiry will prove “inconclusive", and they’ll send a flag to your mommy and call you a hero, but I know you’re just another hate-filled racist. Am I sick? Maybe…or maybe I just love my country to the point that I would kill you to make the world a better place. Meet me on the battlefield and find out. I believe war is necessary when 3000+ Americans are slaughtered, but to allow emotion and hate to cloud your judgement is folly.
I also think the Iraq war is bullshit… Saddam was no more of a threat this year than he was on Sep. 10 2001…it’s the post 9-11 paranoia that has Americans feeling that they have to blast anything that moves to keep the USA safe…It’s obvious that our president suffers from this paranoia, because now he wants to go to Liberia and start shit there…I’m sick of the USA being the political policeman of the world and shaping the destinies of others. We need
to find peace with those who would do us harm, and we need to stop racism and blind loyalty to the state…otherwise, the USA will soon resemble Hitler’s Europe. Do you want that? I don’t, but if YOU do,
then I hope your existence on this planet will soon cease. Your words and actions put the rest of us in jeopardy of becoming the victims of such a dictatorship.

EricaLubarsky

04-27-2004, 06:15 PM

no wonder the politics arena split off from the lounge. The next step is to integrate it with an ultra-conservative forum on another site.

I wondered where those that confused the war with iraq and the war on terror went to. I guess we now know.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

dude1394

04-27-2004, 08:14 PM

This isn't even the craziest stuff. Go to democraticunderground.com if you want to see the real fringe element.

FishForLunch

04-27-2004, 11:00 PM

Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

It may come as a suprise to you but people can come to a different conclusions, not everybody has to trust the editorial crap that is put out by NY times, WP and Newsweek. You may have studied politics, history and philosophy but that does not mean your conclusion(s) is right. I have seen first hand how the Islamists behave, and I understand that Bush is doing all he can to counter the Islamists. I clearly understand we cannot wait for the proof to hit us in the face before we react, you may think so but not me.

Max Power

04-27-2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
no wonder the politics arena split off from the lounge. The next step is to integrate it with an ultra-conservative forum on another site.

I wondered where those that confused the war with iraq and the war on terror went to. I guess we now know.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

And how many insults did YOU throw out there? You certainly implied that you were smarter than "most people". Is that the best way to have an intelligent discussion?

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 12:05 AM

And how many insults did YOU throw out there? You certainly implied that you were smarter than "most people". Is that the best way to have an intelligent discussion?

please point out where I said I was smarter than most people? and where did I insult anyone.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by: FishForLunch

Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

It may come as a suprise to you but people can come to a different conclusions, not everybody has to trust the editorial crap that is put out by NY times, WP and Newsweek. You may have studied politics, history and philosophy but that does not mean your conclusion(s) is right. I have seen first hand how the Islamists behave, and I understand that Bush is doing all he can to counter the Islamists. I clearly understand we cannot wait for the proof to hit us in the face before we react, you may think so but not me.

If you distrust all traditional media sources and only trust fringe media then we will never find any common ground. The New York Times is a prestigious institution and one of their Middle Eastern correspondents has just won the Pulitzer prize. I would rather get my "editorial crap" from them than from Ollie "Iran-Contra" North and the irresponsible journalists at Fox News.

You also create the false dicotomy between supporting Bush and not doing anything against terror. I would like to strengthen world connections and use preventative measures to ensure that nothing else will happen. Bush is philosophically doing a wonderful thing by taking the fight to the terrorists, but in reality he is stirring up the hornet's nest. Give me an international police force and full funding of our national defenses and I would be happy.

Usually Lurkin

04-28-2004, 06:46 AM

cool.

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
no wonder the politics arena split off from the lounge. The next step is to integrate it with an ultra-conservative forum on another site.
a right-wing conspricy theory . . .

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here.
an accusation without follow-through (find some fringe for balance, then). . .

Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.
an emotional reply as an accusation of emotional pandering
along with the "I'm so smart" side of intellectual elitism . . .

That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.
more hypocritic definitionalism (uh, vilifying vilification, while defending a position that threatens to kill US troops)

I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.
the "others are so dumb" side of intellectual elitism, and attempted self-martyrdom. . . .

and you call Reeds the lone voice of liberalism on this forum. Come on, Erica - give yourself a little more credit. You summed up a good portion of the liberal approach right here.

FishForLunch

04-28-2004, 08:50 AM

If you distrust all traditional media sources and only trust fringe media then we will never find any common ground. The New York Times is a prestigious institution and one of their Middle Eastern correspondents has just won the Pulitzer prize. I would rather get my "editorial crap" from them than from Ollie "Iran-Contra" North and the irresponsible journalists at Fox News.

Did I say I dont read the WP, NY Times and Newsweek, I said I dont read the editorial section, because I want to form my own conclusions. I am a news junkie and I read from a large choice of news outlets, as well as liberal and Conservative Blogs. I watch CNN, FOX news and MSNBC so that I can get all sides of the issue, so to accuse people who are not liberal as unable to reach the right (your) conclusion is arrogant.

Please point out what the "irresponsible journalists" at Fox News are doing to upset you. Just dont throw around accusations.

FishForLunch

04-28-2004, 09:13 AM

If the WP and NY Times were so fair how come they have never presented the other side of the story. I guess if it comes from the people who are actually on the ground in Iraq, the tradition media considers them as propoganda

From the Commanding Officer at MWSS-171 to his Marines
Marines and Sailors,

As we approach the end of the year I think it is important to share a
few thoughts about what you've accomplished directly, in some cases,
and indirectly in many others. I am speaking about what the Bush
Administration and each of you has contributed by wearing the uniform,
because the fact that you wear the uniform contributes100% to the
capability of the nation to send a few onto the field to execute
national policy. As you read about these achievements you are a part
of I would call your attention to two things:

1. This is good news that hasn't been fit to print or report on TV.

2. It is much easier to point out the errors a man makes when he makes the tough decisions, rarely is the positive as aggressively pursued.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...

.. the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on
active duty.

.. over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

.. nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

.. the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

.. on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

.. all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are
open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

.. by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools -
500 more than scheduled.

.. teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

.. all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

.. doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under
Saddam.

.. pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to
700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

.. the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq's children.

.. a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's
27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of
thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than
100,000 Iraqi men and women.

.. we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services
and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

.. there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect
50,000 by year-end.

.. the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite
dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major
cities and towns.

.. 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time
customers are opening accounts daily.

.. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

.. the central bank is fully independent.

.. Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and
banking laws.

.. Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

.. satellite TV dishes are legal.

.. foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and
extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and
other government spies.

.. there is no Ministry of Information.

.. there are more than 170 newspapers.

.. you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street
corner.

.. foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.

.. a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does.

.. in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils.

..Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened
when the city council elected its new chairman.

.. today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and
professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the
country.

.. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.

.. the Iraqi government regularly participates in international
events.

..since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two
dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General
Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the
Islamic Conference Summit.

..the Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening
over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

.. Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

.. for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites
celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

.. the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects,
large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of
Iraq.

.. Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to
the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force
cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or
murdering critics.

.. children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree
with the government.

.. political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed,
or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

.. millions of long suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual
terror.

.. Saudis will hold municipal elections.

.. Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

.. Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

.. the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian
-- a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for
democracy and for peace.

.. Saddam is gone.

.. Iraq is free.

President Bush has not faltered or failed.

Yet, little or none of this information has been published by the Press corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that's important.

Iraq under US lead control has come further in six months than Germany
did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's, and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared.

..it took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris,
let alone attempt to build something else in its place.

..now, take into account that Congress fought President Bush on every
aspect of his handling of this country's war and the post-war
reconstruction; and that they continue to claim on a daily basis on
national TV that this conflict has been a failure.

Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our
brothers and sisters in this conflict, do you think anyone else in the
world could have accomplished as much as the United States and the Bush administration in so short a period of time?

These are things worth writing about. Get the word out. Write to
someone you think may be able to influence our Congress or the press to tell the story.

Above all, be proud that you are a part of this historical precedent.

God Bless you all. Have a great Holiday.

Semper Fidelis,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what do we here everyday, how many "innocent" Iraqi and US soilders were killed, and how the country is on the verge of a civil war.

dude1394

04-28-2004, 10:36 AM

I think that Rumsfeld pretty much summed up the main-stream media's "objectivity".

Note the stinging pointed barb aimed squarely at the Los Angeles Times by Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday.

There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks.

One might be to headline saying that Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques. That would be one way to present the information.

Another might be to say: Mosques Targeted in Fallujah. That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.

Well done, Sir.

More of us need to be calling them on the carpet.

Mavdog

04-28-2004, 10:55 AM

It's amazing what $80 Billion can do...don't you wonder what that amount of money have accomplished domestically?

although to include the 2003 Nobel prize awarded Shirin Ebadi certainly isn't a part of the Iraq invasion.

Nor is the fact that the Saudis will hold municipal elections a part of the Iraq equation.

The War in Iraq prompted Qatar to "reform education to give more choices to parents."?

or "Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms"?

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 02:56 PM

if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It's amazing what $80 Billion can do...don't you wonder what that amount of money have accomplished domestically?

although to include the 2003 Nobel prize awarded Shirin Ebadi certainly isn't a part of the Iraq invasion.

Nor is the fact that the Saudis will hold municipal elections a part of the Iraq equation.

The War in Iraq prompted Qatar to "reform education to give more choices to parents."?

or "Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms"?

Add to that list Libya. Economics and UN talks managed to get him to "disarm" and pay lip service to a pro-western POV, but Al-Qaddafi is still a tyrant with a human rights record that could be confused with Saddam Hussein's.

u2sarajevo

04-28-2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.Just wondering Erica, how does that explain why the Los Angeles Times reported that the US targeted Mosques in Fallujah as a headline... giving the impression that we are over there blowing up all the Islamic temples?

I don't get where you are going with that statement?

Mavdog

04-28-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
[quote]
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.
Just wondering Erica, how does that explain why the Los Angeles Times reported that the US targeted Mosques in Fallujah as a headline... giving the impression that we are over there blowing up all the Islamic temples?

I don't get where you are going with that statement?

This was the headline:

Mosque Targeted in Fallouja Fighting
By Tony Perry and Rick Loomis
FALLOUJA, Iraq — A fierce battle Monday in a rubble-strewn neighborhood of this Sunni Muslim stronghold left one Marine and at least eight insurgents dead, casting a new shadow over prospects for a peaceful solution to the military standoff here.

You tell me what is incorrect, inaccurate or not factual in the story. If neither of these are present, just what "explanation" is needed? none...

Max Power

04-28-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

And how many insults did YOU throw out there? You certainly implied that you were smarter than "most people". Is that the best way to have an intelligent discussion?

please point out where I said I was smarter than most people? and where did I insult anyone.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

You certainly implied here that only YOU have studied politics, history, and philosophy. I have studied those subjects as well and what scares me is when a country becomes too concerned with placating EVERY voice.

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

Some positions ARE simple.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

Now you are again saying that MOST people don't know the issues. That is rather elitist.

dude1394

04-28-2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
if you havent noticed, the good news has been printed by the mainstream media. They are just more concerned with the loss of American life as they should be. It's not some liberal conspiracy to overpublicize the death toll. It's what Americans are concerned with.

The main stream media is concerned with making money and promoting liberals. The fact that you pan Fox News as "irresponsible" just highlights your own bias.

Anyone who has read Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd, or witnessed the Augusta Female Member affair with the NYTimes and not group them into the "irresponsible" journalists as well is not being nearly as open-minded as they think.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 07:28 PM

I think Mavdog answered the question clearly. And for all the attacks on me its hard to defend against multiple people who quote minute parts and comment. You really think you are making a philosophical argument by teaming up?

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 07:29 PM

The main stream media is concerned with making money and promoting liberals.

And UsuallyLurkin said I was into conspiracy theory......

Chiwas

04-28-2004, 07:29 PM

Glad to see Erica countering in this section.

348.5 rigthtists to 3.5 leftists now.

(Btw, thankfully the 10-8, 8-10 thread has not been converted in a Baseball section. Sarcastic comment pointing that at least 20 threads out of the last 22 in this section could have been piled up in just one thread)

Oh, well, politics....

dude1394

04-28-2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

The main stream media is concerned with making money and promoting liberals.

And UsuallyLurkin said I was into conspiracy theory......

Who said anything about a "conspiracy" theory. It's an axiom called birds of a feather stick together. How can I honestly trust a profession where 90% of the journalists are admitted liberals. Hmm... who would think that their core beliefs would affect what they do/do not publish or the slant put upon it.

Let's see when the democrats accused bush of being AWOL it was front-page news. Hmm....When questions about the Kerry medal ridicuolous comes out the headline is "Kerry attacks Bush National Guard Record".

Or I wonder why the media isn't a little more insistent about Theresa Kerry's tax return. Or why they aren't insistent on getting kerry's medical records.

I don't know, I guess they are just being fair, but I doubt it.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by: Max Power

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

And how many insults did YOU throw out there? You certainly implied that you were smarter than "most people". Is that the best way to have an intelligent discussion?

please point out where I said I was smarter than most people? and where did I insult anyone.

If conservatives were put under the same scrutiny, it would be obvious that we could find single, fringe individuals who are bad with words and then we could vilify them as the craziness of the conservative ideology. The logic is way off and that is what you are doing here. Not only that you are attempting to create an emotional rather than a rational response to the issue which makes debate impossible, you are making the issue dangerously oversimplified. That scares me out of my wits as someone who has studied politics, history and philosophy.

You certainly implied here that only YOU have studied politics, history, and philosophy. I have studied those subjects as well and what scares me is when a country becomes too concerned with placating EVERY voice.

I never assumed that I was more educated than anyone. I was only using history and political ideology as a basis for my argument. It seems you confuse silencing voices with placating every voice. I don't demand to be heard and I dont demand that my opinion be acted upon. I demand that my opinion be represented in the American democracy. It is the voice of millions and I demand that it not be silenced by people that think arguing against the President are outside the democracy. How is placating bad for the country anyway?

The larger issue is that dissenters are now being called unamerican and haters of America. That is not only abusive, it is moronic to believe that the issues are that simple. Debate is the fuel for dialectic and democracy. Vilifying a position as outside the realm of debate detroys all intelligible debate and weakens our democracy.

Some positions ARE simple.

unfortunately this one is not.

I am a liberal. I know the issues in the Middle East are more complex than most people understand and I did not support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Bush provided. Call me unamerican. I dare you.

Now you are again saying that MOST people don't know the issues. That is rather elitist.

So be it. YOU say the issue is simple but I can bring in many articles from many people in Iraq, people in the educated community, and even people within the Bush administration who say that the situation is much more complex than most people think. You think it is simple? You are way off. Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

dude1394

04-28-2004, 07:44 PM

Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

WOW!! just couldn't help it.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by: dude1394

Who said anything about a "conspiracy" theory. It's an axiom called birds of a feather stick together. How can I honestly trust a profession where 90% of the journalists are admitted liberals. Hmm... who would think that their core beliefs would affect what they do/do not publish or the slant put upon it.

Let's see when the democrats accused bush of being AWOL it was front-page news. Hmm....When questions about the Kerry medal ridicuolous comes out the headline is "Kerry attacks Bush National Guard Record".

Or I wonder why the media isn't a little more insistent about Theresa Kerry's tax return. Or why they aren't insistent on getting kerry's medical records.

I don't know, I guess they are just being fair, but I doubt it.

I never read that poll? Can you find that for me, dude? If you are going to give me trouble about assumptions I make then you better find that or give it up.

Can you find actual examples of those texts? Mavdog found an article that shut U2 down. Im wondering if you can point to real empirical evidence of the media bias or if you are just devoted to the ideology that you don't need real evidence to keep the belief alive. If you go to respectable news organizations you will find good reporting. Period. You can quote the Sun which is obviously liberally slanted but find a piece of liberally slanted reporting on NPR, in the Washington Times or in another respectable, and in my opinion, neutral news media. Where was Bush going AWOL a front page article and why was it there? It seems obvious that the actions taken by the President of the United States and someone running against him is front page news to me. It's juicy and interesting. Not only is Kerry's wife's story less interesting, there isnt really news going on there. It's an investigative. It has nothing to do with a current event. The president's troubles are always juicier than an investigative report promoted by some journalist about a private citizen.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by: dude1394

Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

WOW!! just couldn't help it.

tremendous post, Dude. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

I spend half my time defending myself. I was kinda hoping the politics would be important here. PM me if you want to giggle at something I said.

dude1394

04-28-2004, 08:02 PM

I never read that poll? Can you find that for me, dude?

Can you find actual examples of those texts?

You caught me. *sheep*. It's only 61% who are self-identified as "Democrat or Liberal" versus 15% Republican or leaning republican, in 1996. Now it's only 25% Liberal, 59% moderate and 6% conservative. I guess you could read this as the media is becoming MORE balanced, but unfortunately I don't buy it.

From the late Michael Kelly

As to the first, there is no question that journalists as a group are much more liberal than conservative and much more so than the general public. The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, ``the pattern of results is compelling.'' The percentage of journalists who were classified as ``liberals'' were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as ``conservative,'' survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9. Voting patterns and findings on specific issues (for instance, regarding abortion, gun control or taxes) have consistently mirrored these general attitudes.
Surveys since have shown no overall change in this dynamic. A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as ``Democrat or liberal`` or ``lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican. A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

The point he is trying to make here is that "liberal" has now become "moderate" in the eyes of the media. However only 6% are now "conservative".

I spend half my time defending myself. I was kinda hoping the politics would be important here. PM me if you want to giggle at something I said.

Sorry to dissapoint. But I thought it enlightening that you were defending yourself as NOT talking like you were more intelligent than others however you went and did it again, must be unconscious.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 08:09 PM

take it to PM, dude.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 08:11 PM

A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

crappy sample size and you think that that means that "liberal" is accepted as moderate?

What is the sample size on the 1996 poll?

Max Power

04-28-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
So be it. YOU say the issue is simple but I can bring in many articles from many people in Iraq, people in the educated community, and even people within the Bush administration who say that the situation is much more complex than most people think. You think it is simple? You are way off. Even I dont know the full complexity of the issue.

I wasn't trying to discuss politics with you, I was only pointing out that you can't expect people to have a rational discussion with you on a subject as emotional as politics when you start with a condensending post. Maybe you don't realize how insulting your posts are on this subject.

And as far as complexity, the simpliest plans usually work best. The more complex a plan is, the more chances for the plan to fail. But your mileage might vary.

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the "media elite" were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article "Media and Business Elites." The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman's subsequent book, "The Media Elite," became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.

Key Findings

* 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
* In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
* In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
* In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
* In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
* Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.

But hey after 16 years of bias, maybe the media has changed. NOT.

dude1394

04-28-2004, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

crappy sample size and you think that that means that "liberal" is accepted as moderate?

What is the sample size on the 1996 poll?

Splitting hairs erica. If you can't believe michael kelly, there is not much hope for you.

FishForLunch

04-28-2004, 09:44 PM

Please point out what the "irresponsible journalists" at Fox News are doing to upset you. Just dont throw around accusations

I am still wating for an answer why do you think Fox News is irresponsible? Is it because it also present the conservative side of the issues.

dude1394

04-28-2004, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

crappy sample size and you think that that means that "liberal" is accepted as moderate?

What is the sample size on the 1996 poll?

You are too quick to type. The poll size for the 1996 poll was in the sentence above the one you quoted.

A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as ``Democrat or liberal`` or ``lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican

Mavdog

04-28-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by: FishForLunch

Please point out what the "irresponsible journalists" at Fox News are doing to upset you. Just dont throw around accusations

I am still wating for an answer why do you think Fox News is irresponsible? Is it because it also present the conservative side of the issues.

two words:

Rupert Murdoch

FishForLunch

04-28-2004, 10:03 PM

I am still waiting, please point out some instances of irresponsible journalists. Rupert Murdoch does not explain anything

dude1394

04-28-2004, 10:05 PM

He's the boogeyman.

Mavdog

04-28-2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I am still waiting, please point out some instances of irresponsible journalists. Rupert Murdoch does not explain anything

actually it explains everything.

"Murdoch uses his diverse holdings, which include newspapers, magazines, sports teams, a movie studio, and a book publisher, to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real newsgathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch."

"Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, pointed out that Murdoch's New York Post had introduced the label "Axis of Weasels" for France and Germany, and that his Fox News had enthusiastically repeated and amplified the message."

"Rupert Murdoch strikes out
With the Sandy Koufax gay rumor, the News Corp. synergy sewer finally overflows.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Keith Olbermann
Feb. 22, 2003 | Most of us have learned to simply accept the fact that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. exists in the world, just as we've come to accept that there are terrorists among us, as well as people who scam grandmothers out of their savings.

And then every once in a while the News Corp. will do something so rapacious, so pathetic, that one has to stand up and say no more, to call for legal and moral measures to stop it, even if all gestures prove futile. "

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I am still waiting, please point out some instances of irresponsible journalists. Rupert Murdoch does not explain anything

whoa I need to be online 24/7?!?!?!? Some people have class and work....It is reading week this week which is the study time before finals.

I would need more time here to explain the point. Maybe after finals I will give some. I have already discussed Ann Coulter in another thread who is not a newsperson but a media pundit all the same.

EricaLubarsky

04-28-2004, 10:56 PM

Splitting hairs erica. If you can't believe michael kelly, there is not much hope for you.

Hmm...well in 1964, the year that the poll began (Im assuming that this was the first election covered). The election was between giving LBJ 4 more years after the year or so he served of JFKs term and Richard Nixon. Neither Nixon nor LBJ fit the standards for Republicans and Democrats back then. Modern day Republicans were not what they were until the Reagan administration when supply side tax cuts and invasive international politics was added to the agenda. If we are going by the first 17 years of the poll then I would be a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility and staying out of world politics. So even though there were 1,000+ who were polled, the majority of the study was done before neo-conservativism.

During the Clinton administration the lines between the two parties were blurred but since Reagan the two parties have switched their ideas about unilateral force and balancing the budget.

Think about it. Nixon wanted to stay out of world power. Kennedy got us into Vietnam. Nixon got us out. Nixon wanted a balanced budget. Kennedy imposed supply-side tax cuts (which were the only time in the history of tax cuts where supply-side tax cuts spurred an economic boom in the manufacturing sector. )

I hardly think that the poll tells us anything if each issue is not specifically aimed at specific issues and it is irresponsible for a poller to not release the questions that were asked and how they were asked. The most recent poll, although it had a small sample size says

A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

Dont you see something funny there, Dude?

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976
LBJ- 1964- rode JFK
against Nixon- 1968
No election to put in Ford
Jimmy Carter- 1976

Hmm....thats not a tough set

It's hard to see what happened since the change in political parties. The poll is 13 years old. In 1981 Reagan was barely being sworn in.

edit: Im sorry, the poll began in 1962 while the world was in love with JFK and before he had really been tested in Vietnam. This was also right after Kennedy had faced down the Russians in their attempt to put missiles in Cuba. Since Kennedy had called Mrs. King during the 1960 election, the democrats were also the party of the civil rights movement. Nixon (r.) also lost a lot of support by the media during the Kent State massacre and Watergate.

FishForLunch

04-28-2004, 11:55 PM

I watch Foxnews and CNN constantly will surfing the web, I have not seen Rupert Murdoch on FOX news once

Usually Lurkin

04-29-2004, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Glad to see Erica countering in this section.

348.5 rigthtists to 3.5 leftists now.

(Btw, thankfully the 10-8, 8-10 thread has not been converted in a Baseball section. Sarcastic comment pointing that at least 20 threads out of the last 22 in this section could have been piled up in just one thread)

Oh, well, politics....

Hey now - this shouldn't be about people v. people. A good discussion is ideas v. ideas. No need to foster any persecution complexes. If your tired of seeing one side of an argument in the minority, either put some more quality posts in to the discussion, recruit some more posters, or start some topics that might have a different balance.

Mavdog

04-29-2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I watch Foxnews and CNN constantly will surfing the web, I have not seen Rupert Murdoch on FOX news once

You're not able to see the puppeteer.

Chiwas

04-29-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Glad to see Erica countering in this section.

348.5 rigthtists to 3.5 leftists now.

(Btw, thankfully the 10-8, 8-10 thread has not been converted in a Baseball section. Sarcastic comment pointing that at least 20 threads out of the last 22 in this section could have been piled up in just one thread)

Oh, well, politics....

Hey now - this shouldn't be about people v. people. A good discussion is ideas v. ideas. No need to foster any persecution complexes. If your tired of seeing one side of an argument in the minority, either put some more quality posts in to the discussion, recruit some more posters, or start some topics that might have a different balance.Sincerely I'm not in the level that you all have to put quality posts here. Sometimes I can post something that I think can be valuable but they are very few. However, I agree that, excepting some replies to reeds, everything else is not people vs people in this section. I'm tired of seeing topics with no replies, I'm tired of seeing topics with only press articles. But in reality I'm not tired of this section. And thankfully Erica has come to help to the balance thing; in fact, this thread is becoming one of the best.

EricaLubarsky

04-29-2004, 04:18 PM

No need to foster any persecution complexes

you hearing this, Dude?

dude1394

04-29-2004, 07:52 PM

Erica, I don't personally feel persecuted (that's why I live in texas), but I'm not in denial either. There is no doubt, no doubt in my mind that the main stream media is liberal biased. If for nothing else than they are located in the most liberal bastions of the country.

Thank GOODNESS for Fox News, NRO, WeeklyStandard, talk radio and certainly now the internet. Where even the liberals cannot escape what is written, said and videod anymore.

Unfortunately too many folks still take their news from the msm, but hopefully that too will change.

Journalists voting democrat in those years at 80% is just like the current black vote of 80%.

I don't know honestly what conclusion you could draw from this other than that the majority of journalists are liberal.

EricaLubarsky

04-29-2004, 08:05 PM

I don't know honestly what conclusion you could draw from this other than that the majority of journalists are liberal.

From 1962-1981 most journalists identified as liberal. Okay but you completely ignored the fact the republicans now arent what they used to be and democrats arent either. Your ancient poll clearly shows nothing in the modern political arena other than the fact that 13 years ago (as Reagan was taking office) most of the members of the media polled identified themselves as liberal. Both the lliberal and conservative agendas have changed dramatically. Read it as it is. The history is there.

dude1394

04-29-2004, 08:27 PM

Erica, you asked me to find you a poll. I did. Now you don't like the poll. Maybe you have one you could share.

So tell me know what your acceptable poll dates are as I don't want to keep bringing another rock.

I just googled it and found what I found. But, the Michael Kelly article was recent and I respected him immensely. Also my statement about the msm being located in the heartland of liberalism stands. The last time I looked NY, California went pretty overwhelminly for gore/clintoon/etc.

dude1394

04-29-2004, 08:33 PM

It's like shooting ducks honestly.

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican.

KEY FINDINGS
* In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.
* In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.
* In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.
* In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, two voted for Ronald Reagan.
* In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a book by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, "Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media." Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

This one is interesting as even when the rest of the country is counted the editors still overwhelmingly are liberal.

In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

KEY FINDINGS
* In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.
* In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

I welcome your results showing that the media is actually conservative.

EricaLubarsky

04-30-2004, 01:39 AM

I welcome your results showing that the media is actually conservative

I never said it was conservative. You need to read more clearly.

I still think that you need to back off your original statemtent that

90% of the journalists are admitted liberals.

those polls have only shown that there is a tendency for reporters to identify as democrats at around 5-15%.

Usually Lurkin

04-30-2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
[quote]
those polls have only shown that there is a tendency for reporters to identify as democrats at around 5-15%.

25:6
80%

9:2
12:1
10:0
11:2

9:1

58%
57%

How do you get that these ratios reveal a tendency for a 5-15% preference? They show a 57%-100% preference.
Good luck with finals.

Mavdog

04-30-2004, 09:23 AM

Liberal Bias in the media is a myth.

The vast majority of the american public receive their news from sources other than those cited in the incredibly small base of the studies.

From local newspapers to the reality of the net, people don't rely on those newsgathers.

There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to headline saying that Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques. That would be one way to present the information.

Another might be to say: Mosques Targeted in Fallujah. That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.

madape

04-30-2004, 12:48 PM

Here's an interesting site that documents bias in media:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

madape

04-30-2004, 12:51 PM

Here's a link to a a Harvard and MIT paper on the business of media bias.

Recently ADA (The same guys who tell us each year how liberal or conservative each congressman/senator is based on their voting record) has begun ranking media outlets based on media bias.

It turns out that all of the major media outlets, with the exception of Fox News: Special Report are considerably more liberal than the median member of the House over the 1993-1999 period. Moreover, although Fox News: Special Report was to the right of the median house member it was closer to the median member than were most of the other media outlets. (Interestingly, all of the liberal media outlets were less liberal than the average Democrat and Fox News is less conservative than the average Republican - thus there is a sense in which all media outlets are less biased than is the typical politician.) Here are the ADA scores of various media outlets along with some comparable politicians. The higher the score, the more liberal the outlet/politician.

Here's a paper explaining how the bias score is calculated, written by the Stanford and University of Chicago professors who developed the model. It's a great read if you're interested. http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

The paper's conclusion:

Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

dude1394

04-30-2004, 01:19 PM

You can really see the impact that the host has on a show when you watch special report with brit hume. Absolutely the best. If a network show had sense they would hire him.